In re Lamb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Lamb

145 A.D.2d 935, 536 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13969

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 23, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 935 (In re Lamb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Lamb, 145 A.D.2d 935, 536 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We affirm the order for reasons stated in the memorandum decision at Surrogate’s Court (Ciaccio, S.). We add only that the six-year Statute of Limitations period applies to this action, which is premised upon various notes signed by respondent Charles Vergo (CPLR 213). This is not an action seeking the return of money or personal property, which can be likened to a replevin action for which the three-year Statute of Limitations applies (see, Matter of Bellingham, 132 AD2d 973, lv denied 70 NY2d 614). (Appeals from order of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S.— dismiss petition.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We affirm the order for reasons stated in the memorandum decision at Surrogate’s Court (Ciaccio, S.). We add only that the six-year Statute of Limitations period applies to this action, which is premised upon various notes signed by respondent Charles Vergo (CPLR 213). This is not an action seeking the return of money or personal property, which can be likened to a replevin action for which the three-year Statute of Limitations applies (see, Matter of Bellingham, 132 AD2d 973, lv denied 70 NY2d 614). (Appeals from order of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S.— dismiss petition.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 935, 536 N.Y.S.2d 613, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lamb-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack